A Liberal Goes Galt

Sara Robinson of AlterNet is unhappy. Red states take more government money than blue states, which Ms. Robinson thinks is ironic, since the red states are full of right-wingers who admire Ayn Rand. She thinks the productive blue states should “Go Galt” against the parasitical red states.

Now, a state is a large political entity with all types of people in it. There are people who work hard and pay their taxes in every state. There are parasites in every state. So Ms. Robinson is pitting two collectives against one another in ways that have little meaning. A state might have two Republican Senators merely because they got 51% of the vote. Moreover, being Republican hardly means you stand for limited government, much less the laissez-faire capitalism advocated by Ayn Rand.

But let’s play along with Ms. Robinson, however little this exercise has to do with reality. She has a list of ways blue states could go Galt against the red states. Let’s see what happens when a liberal stops helping parasitical right-wingers.

First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest of us paid to build.

Wait. I don’t think Ms. Robinson understands Atlas Shrugged. John Galt withdrew the sanction of the victim. That means he stopped sacrificing to the parasites. It doesn’t mean the parasites must STFU. They have the freedom to say what they want. John Galt does not care what they say.

As for the list of infrastrucure items, the military bases and prisons are proper government functions; the rest should be privatized. But this is probably the kind of talk Ms. Robinson wants to STFU.

Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest deduction — which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and with it your status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and invested in you. And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even acknowledge that fact.

Again, liberals going Galt means right-wingers have to shut up? You’re “deeply insulted” because the right is not grateful for all they have gotten, whether they wanted it or not, from the welfare state, so you demand they shut up?

How about we get the government out of the economy and let everyone say whatever the hell he wants?

Third: Don’t come crawling to us to support those kids you couldn’t afford to have, but refused to allow contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to prevent. It’s just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your policies force women to have kids, even when they’re patently not ready to have them. Now (as you’re so fond of telling women who find themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences of those choices.

So you want to end welfare, WIC, and myriad other programs for families? Fine with me. Somehow I think your emotions of fear and loathing for the benighted right are getting the better of you and you don’t really mean it.

Fourth: Don’t ask us to pay to educate your kids if you’re not willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public education because it’s done more than any other government service to make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.

Let’s have freedom in education. That way, if you want us to conform to your methods of eduction, you must persuade us. You can’t use the government to force your educational ideal on us. Oh, and if we’re to have a rational discussion about education, it means we don’t STFU. You’ll have to listen to us, too. Perhaps you’ll learn something.

We realize some of you aren’t too keen on public schools. It’s great that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating your own kids. Just be warned: if you don’t teach them real science and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual contents of the US Constitution — we’re probably not going to hire them. So we hope you’re also ready to take responsibility for that, too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your basement until you die.

So the blue staters will only hire people who have gone to government schools? Okay. Good luck with that.

Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies, we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we’d actually rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred CAFO-grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can. There aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all of us yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are working hard on the problem. You can either get on this train, or holler at it while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us because we don’t want to eat what you choose to grow.

Notice, too, that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the first place is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with profits on this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L Loser. In ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.”

You think farms must be subsidized because the free market failed? Have you ever read a good economist? Read Mises. In the meantime, let’s end the Department of Agriculture, and get rid of the vast library of regulations that add billions to the price of farming, and let’s see what happens.

Sixth: We are so over your bigotry. Again: we know from our own long experience that including women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it also makes us more economically productive as well. And the recent economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on those least able to resist — like you.

Diversity isn’t just an idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is just another word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep them poor and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you parasites. And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you.

Fine. Deal with whomever you want. That’s the whole point of freedom. But let’s get rid of OSHA and all the other multiculti regulations and let everyone choose to deal with whomever he wants. Some will choose unfairly. It sucks, but that’s the way freedom works.

And finally: If you want to pretend global warming isn’t happening, you do not get to come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or floods. We’re not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We’re not going to build canals to give you our water. We’re not going to fund your levees. If you’re so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your reservoirs full and your cities dry. Because we resign.

Great. Let’s dismantle FEMA now. Or are you just making promises you don’t really mean?

Thus ends Ms. Robinson’s agenda, but she’s not done. She has five demands that red staters must meet before she’ll call it over.

1. Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If you can’t, that’s fine — we’ll go back to helping you out — but , because you’re simply not entitled to it.

How does one stop taking federal money when one has no say in it? But when you write “you have to let go of that producerist superiority crap,” this demand is really about shutting up people who disagree with you.

2. Admit that we were right. Admit that nobody in America ever makes it on their own, and that we are all in this together, and that there’s such a thing as the common wealth and the common good. Admit that regulation is necessary to keep the unprincipled strong from preying on the weak. Admit that there has never in history ever been any such thing as a free market: markets are created by governments, and need to be overseen by them. And finally: admit that your conservative leaders got us into this economic mess, and don’t know squat about how to get us out of it.

Again, you are demanding ideological conformity. Going Galt seems to mean to you shutting up people with different ideas.

3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who’ve gained the real-world skills to help themselves.

You believe in God? I don’t, but that’s okay. You can think what you want. I agree with you on evolution, disagree with you on climate change, and laugh at your demands that I conform to your thinking.

4. Admit that we love our country every bit as much as you do — and that, given our much greater success at creating strong families, productive 21st-century industries and excellent places to live, we might actually know more that you do about how to make it work better in the future.

I don’t care what you love. I care that your collectivist vision for America will destroy it, despite your love for it. Government intervention is the road to serfdom.

5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering, threats and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly that parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you should be embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so clearly. And, just once, say thank you to us for all the contributions we’ve made (or, at least, tried to make) toward your well-being. We don’t ask for much, but a little gratitude now and then wouldn’t hurt.

Who is hate-mongering? All I hear from the left is lies, smears and character assassination. All wealth is produced by individuals in what remains of the free market in our mixed economy. The government just steals the wealth and redistributes it. Are we to thank you for holding a gun to the producers in our name? Is that the kind of gratitude you want? You’re like a mafia boss saying to a store owner, “You know, you oughtta thank us for protecting you.”

“The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” — Frederic Bastiat

12 Comments so far ↓

To sum up, and I wish I had put this in the original post: Going Galt means the producers withdraw. Ms. Robinson spends most of her post hoping to intimidate the so-called parasites into withdrawing. And how typical a distortion that is of the left. Her use of Galt is really an attempt to discredit the right and shut them up so that she does not have to hear what they are saying. It’s so much easier than, you know, actually arguing with the substance of their ideas.

Sixth: We are so over your bigotry. Again: we know from our own long experience that including women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it also makes us more economically productive as well. And the recent economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on those least able to resist — like you.

Diversity isn’t just an idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us richer on every front that matters.
____

Perhaps Robinson should present the evidence for the claim that “diversity” is such a boon for a nation, a corporation or an economy.

Perhaps Robinson should present the evidence for the claim that “diversity” is such a boon for a nation, a corporation or an economy.

This is something that an Objectivist would not care to challenge because it involves race and is therefore “irrelevant” but its total garbage. If this Leftist idiot were really to go down the bunny hole of black dysfunction and their “economic production” she would lose sleep at night as her the walls of her equalist worldview came crashing down around her.

And as for “monocultures run exclusively by rich white men” – can she really say this about modern day America with a straight face? These Leftists are simultaneously psychotic and evil.

Also, I would bet anything that the sections of the red states that take the biggest chunk of welfare are the minority sections; ie the black and hispanic enclaves of the red states. Which is why “red” vs “blue” is misleading. Its really about purple. Pretty much all counties in America that are dominated by either left-liberal or minorities are blue. All of white non-leftist America is red. We really do have two Americas.

But of course, Ms Robinson would never want to go down that bunny hole either.

“diversity” is one of those package-deals, just like the term “tolerance” is nowadays.

I think that diversity of race is irrelevant and utterly devoid of merit.

Diversity of culture in the “classical” sense (that is, having access to a broad range of man-made facts across cultures) has a merit, namely that it presents you with facts that may well be rational values to you. This is particularly true in aesthetic realms such as music and visual art, and especially snacks. I’d go so far as to say that a good load of cultural diversity is essential to an “ultimate” theory of concept formation (although people can form concepts with no knowledge at all of other cultures), since it makes it really obvious how conceptualization is volitional, and depends on focus.

Of course, you have today the Progressive diversity movement which groups people by their perceived attributes, and treats people as favored, or non-favored groups, just like the bigot. Only, the diversity movement has to employ techniques, or group think classes, to constantly convince themselves, or dupe themselves, into thinking they are really compassionate, and not bigots.

I am starting think that perhaps it isn’t a package deal but rather a non-concept.

Ooh, I’m sure he’s just heartbroken about that. No doubt you dislike me too. If so, good. If you liked me I’d know I’d need to do some serious self-examination to figure out where I’d gone wrong.

“This was clear when not only did you mock the Conservative blogger Vox Populi…”

I’d never read his blog until you mentioned him just now. I was, sad to say, not surprised. It took 5 minutes of reading to discover he (1) wants to deport all those nasty colored people (“Whether they like it or not, the white European people of the West are facing two ugly choices. Either start deportating the barbarians now or fight a brutal war later. Africans cannot be blamed for acting like Africans, Mexicans cannot be blamed for acting like Mexicans, and Arabs cannot be blamed for acting like Arabs.”), (2) preaches the Game, and (3) indulges in theological maunderings. Oh, and he’s a self-proclaimed supporter of the Federal Reserve. So this is the sort of conservative you seriously believe Objectivists should treat with respect? Is he one of those “true Conservatives” you claim Objectivists are unfamiliar with? That’s very interesting, very revealing, and very dismaying about you.

“…but you said that if you were to (paraphrasing) become a tyrant for a day you would prevent him from voicing his anti-atheist ideas. Very interesting May, very interesting. And revealing. You wouldn’t use your “Objectivist Kingly” powers to save us from the Left. No. You would use them to punish the Right for defending Christianity.”

Since you didn’t even bother quoting him directly, we have no way of knowing how accurate your paraphrase is, but given your misunderstanding of Rand’s view of free will, your misrepresentation of Diana Hsieh’s position on the NYC mosque (her considered opinion is not that property rights are inviolate but rather that in the absence of an explicit declaration of war, violating the rule of law sets a very ugly precedent, as all statist interventions in wars have done, for violating the rights of other people, such as Objectivists, who criticize the government), and your constant recourse to childish name calling and blustering, I would doubt the accuracy of even a direct quote from you without checking out the original for myself–you’re simply that unreliable in my book. (And even if it were an accurate paraphrase, it sounds like a not-very-serious insult or humorous comment.)

And what was it you said in the other comment thread, that Rand would sympathize with Conservatives? First, what do you mean by “true conservative”? Second, Rand sympathized with those who turned to conservatives as selfproclaimed defenders of liberty and capitalism, but she did not sympathize with such figures as William F. Buckley–you know, founder of the most dangerous magazine in America, accrding to her. She had no sympathy for conservative thinkers and intellectual leaders who explicitly defended capitalism on religious grounds; one suspects that if she were faced with their epigones who add in white skin as equally necessary (whether inherently or through culture) as Christianity for the necessary bases of capitalism, you’d end up attacking her just as virulently as you do Objectivists in the blogosphere.

Is he one of those “true Conservatives” you claim Objectivists are unfamiliar with?

He’s closer to the Conservatism of the 19th century than Glen Beck or Andrew Breitbart. True Conservatives want to “conserve” the racial, ethnic, religious and patriarchal system of the pre-modern world. That is true Conservatism. From the list you yourself gave of Vox’s ideas I don’t think saying he is closer to true Conservatism is as way off as you think. PaleoConservatives are the closest of today’s Conservatives to true Conservatism. Most other Conservatives are more libertarian. An allegedly smart dude should understand that.

Since you didn’t even bother quoting him directly, we have no way of knowing how accurate your paraphrase is

Look at his twitter feed for god sakes.

her considered opinion is not that property rights are inviolate but rather that in the absence of an explicit declaration of war, violating the rule of law sets a very ugly precedent, as all statist interventions in wars have done, for violating the rights of other people, such as Objectivists, who criticize the government

This “considered” opinion is a disgrace because it misses the CENTRAL concern in this debate and that is the reality of the evil of Islam and its total political and cultural incompatibility with the West and America. “Dr. Diana Hsieh” never even considers that because her whole approach to the issue is wrong. That she is even considered an “intellectual” whose opinion matters in this war to the death with the Muslims IS a disgrace.

And what was it you said in the other comment thread, that Rand would sympathize with Conservatives?

She would sympathize with the Rush Limbaugs, the Thomas Sowells, the Glen Becks of the world; ie she would sympathize with the more Classical Liberal Cosnervatives. Do you honestly doubt that?

one suspects that if she were faced with their epigones who add in white skin as equally necessary (whether inherently or through culture) as Christianity for the necessary bases of capitalism, you’d end up attacking her just as virulently as you do Objectivists in the blogosphere.

She wouldn’t identify with the PaleoCons, no. She would condemn them. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t get some things right. Right now the PaleoCon right more than any one sees the evil of the egalitarianism of the Left. They IDENTIFY the destruction that the Left is wreaking (especially Auster who is the best commentator on the evil of Islam/Leftist alliance bar none) on the culture better than anyone. The do not have solutions but that doesn’t change the fact that they spot the signs of collapse. Is it too difficult for you to separate the useful from the non-useful when reading a cultural commentator? You’re a smart guy. No?

If you liked me I’d know I’d need to do some serious self-examination to figure out where I’d gone wrong.

Popularity and who likes who is irrelevant. If I were to meet you in real life I’m willing to bet that you are a beta-male dweeb who I would feel contempt for within 3 minutes. You would consider me a waaycist and a sexxxistttt evil boogeyman. We would hate each other. Who cares.

I’m pointing out the blind spots of the Objectivist movement better than anyone. The Left is creating an egalitarian wave that will destroy America in any number of ways (Christian theocracy being the least probable) and most Objectivists are bitching and moaning about Conservatives and gay marriage and abortion when the Left is waging a wholesale WAR against white, heterosexual males whom they are demonizing and dehumanizing. That you don’t see this reveals everything that I need to know about you. Mike.

Oh and word to the managers of this blog site: try not to be thin-skinned little wimps and delete the antagonistic comments. Man up and don’t be thick spittle little wusses. Take it and give it. Or are Objectivist males now just like Leftist beta-male chumps. You know, those sensitive types.

[Bill Brown: Antagonistic, I have no problem with. You’ve been antagonistic for quite some time. Where you cross the line is personal attacks. I don’t believe for a second that you don’t know the difference.]

I’m desperately looking for any sign of life in the Oist world. Fuck, some of you actually make Parille look lively.

So do most Conservatives. So did Isac Newton. Does that disqualify everyone who ever believed in god? Are you THAT kind of O’ist?

Oh, and he’s a self-proclaimed supporter of the Federal Reserve

So does Thomas Sowell. Hell, so did Milton Friedman and the entire Chicago School. Does that mean that Friedman and Sowell are worthless?

preaches the Game

Game is evolutionary psychology applied to the sexual marketplace. Read Ridley, read Buss, read any number of evolutionary theorists on sexual psychology. If you don’t think that biology affects sexual psychology then you might as well ride the short bus. Oh and how often do you have sex with your wife?

Whether they like it or not, the white European people of the West are facing two ugly choices. Either start deportating the barbarians now or fight a brutal war later. Africans cannot be blamed for acting like Africans, Mexicans cannot be blamed for acting like Mexicans, and Arabs cannot be blamed for acting like Arabs

This is the central premise of HBD; ie that race affects biology and biology affects culture. I think that biology does influence culture but it does not determine or mandate collectivism. There is too much data on race and temperament and race and behavior patterns to say that biology does not influence culture. That being said, I think Laissez Faire is a possibility if there are the philosophical prerequisites in place; big IF. But you can say Vox Poppuli is a racist fool but what about John Derbyshire or Charles Murray or Richard Lynn or James Watson or Phillip Rushton? Are they all racist idiots? Are the social sciences all racist clap-trap?

Game is ridiculous. It works in the context of damaged goods. If you’re into the acquisition of damaged goods, then I’m sure you’ll just have a ball. Good luck with that.

Are the social sciences all racist clap-trap? No, some of it is non-racist clap-trap. It does appear to all be clap-trap of one sort or another, however.

I do actually pay attention to it when I can, and I have yet to see a scientific article that wasn’t committing the error of begging the question. Or at the very least with conclusions that depend on drastic assumptions… conclusions that could just as easily be explained via ideological causality. Too often they look at the brute biology of what happens, without a single thought that biological reactions in brain chemistry and structure may have causes in man’s thoughts and choices. It’s a chicken and egg issue, really.

Is he one of those “true Conservatives” you claim Objectivists are unfamiliar with?

He’s closer to the Conservatism of the 19th century than Glen Beck or Andrew Breitbart. True Conservatives want to “conserve” the racial, ethnic, religious and patriarchal system of the pre-modern world. That is true Conservatism. From the list you yourself gave of Vox’s ideas I don’t think saying he is closer to true Conservatism is as way off as you think.

Um, yeah, that was my point, my boy—he seems to me to be a true conservative, and as such he deserves the scorn you claim Jim May directed at him. If so, why were you complaining about May treating him with disrespect?

Since you didn’t even bother quoting him directly, we have no way of knowing how accurate your paraphrase is

Look at his twitter feed for god sakes.

Oh, I checked his twitter feed going back several months and saw no such tweets, so as I said, quote him directly or at least give a citation, because you’re not trustworthy.

her considered opinion is not that property rights are inviolate but rather that in the absence of an explicit declaration of war, violating the rule of law sets a very ugly precedent, as all statist interventions in wars have done, for violating the rights of other people, such as Objectivists, who criticize the government

This “considered” opinion is a disgrace because it misses the CENTRAL concern in this debate and that is the reality of the evil of Islam and its total political and cultural incompatibility with the West and America. “Dr. Diana Hsieh” never even considers that because her whole approach to the issue is wrong. That she is even considered an “intellectual” whose opinion matters in this war to the death with the Muslims IS a disgrace.

You really can’t think straight, my boy, and you certainly aren’t able to understand the point of what anyone else is saying. Let me break it down for you: Let us accept your claim that the greatest enemy facing us is Leftists trying to destroy freedom in the name of equality. One of the last things standing in the way of them outlawing those who disagree with them is freedom of thought and expression. It’s certainly threatened by restrictions on commercial speech, “hate crimes,” and the like, but it’s still respected as a general principle. In the debate over the NYC mosque, opponents of the mosque argued that Islam is such a threat that all rule of law must be scrapped in the face of Islam so as to prevent the mosque being built. Why? Because it is a uniquely dangerous system of ideas. Therefore, you want to introduce an officially recognized political crime defined by adherence to a particular system of ideas—you want to set the precedent of criminalizing ideas, not actions. Yet at the same time you write, “The Left controls ever major component of our society and they are gaining the ability to punish, censure, and one day even criminalize non-leftist thought.” You really see no problem with giving the Left that you so hate the precedent for criminalizing systems of thought in such a political climate? Then you’re a blinkered fool who’s casting the very sword the enemies you so hate will gleefully gut you with.

And what was it you said in the other comment thread, that Rand would sympathize with Conservatives?

She would sympathize with the Rush Limbaugs, the Thomas Sowells, the Glen Becks of the world; ie she would sympathize with the more Classical Liberal Cosnervatives. Do you honestly doubt that?

But she would not sympathize with Vox Popoli or his ilk, the ones you attacked Jim May for disrespecting. Why equate the two types, as you consistently do?

If you liked me I’d know I’d need to do some serious self-examination to figure out where I’d gone wrong.

Popularity and who likes who is irrelevant.

Precisely, my boy, precisely. So why do you consistently bring it up? What in the hell was the point of announcing to the whole world what you think of Jim May? You clearly don’t respect Jim May or me, and neither of us, I’m sure, has any respect left for you. (I certainly don’t after reading the stuff you post under your own name over at SoloPassion.) Yet we do a far better job of trying to debate ideas with you than you probably deserve, and when offered the chance to debate ideas or put forward a positive program for immigration reform, say, you just punk out.

If I were to meet you in real life I’m willing to bet that you are a beta-male dweeb who I would feel contempt for within 3 minutes.

So what? All that means is that you’ve bought into the stupid dichotomy that Game proponents like to put forward of there being only two kinds of men, those who don’t eat red meat and those who eat it raw. Me, I like a medium rare filet mignon.

You would consider me a waaycist and a sexxxistttt evil boogeyman.

You’re the one who sees boogeymen everywhere. I consider you a deluded, immature fellow with far too little experience in the world of ideas and a hair-trigger desire to make everyone notice you and pay attention to all the bees in your bonnet, yet when you’re offered the chance to debate your ideas, whether proper immigration policy here, evolutionary psychology or Chomsky’s ideas here or at Gus Van Horn’s blog, or whatever else, you refuse to do so and instead consistently turn the conversation back to purely political discussions and personal abuse.

We would hate each other. Who cares.

It’s painfully obvious that you do, otherwise you wouldn’t keep stooping to personal comments as you always do.indulges in theological maunderings

So do most Conservatives. So did Isac Newton. Does that disqualify everyone who ever believed in god? Are you THAT kind of O’ist?

The simple answer: This is the 21st century and not the 18th. Why should I pay them the respect you seem to think they deserve when they aren’t even happy with the religious latitude and emphasis on reason of Newton’s day?

Oh, and he’s a self-proclaimed supporter of the Federal Reserve

So does Thomas Sowell. Hell, so did Milton Friedman and the entire Chicago School. Does that mean that Friedman and Sowell are worthless?

On the question of the Federal Reserve, probably, but the point was that those were the only four topics I could find at his entire blog after poking around a while. No ringing defenses of capitalism, however mixed, no defenses of individual accomplishment or the like, nothing to present a view of the world I might sympathize with. You’re welcome to waste your time swimming in such swill, but to come here and expect an audience of Objectivists to agree with you is…a serious misjudgement of your audience and your message.

preaches the Game

Game is evolutionary psychology applied to the sexual marketplace. Read Ridley, read Buss, read any number of evolutionary theorists on sexual psychology.

I have, my boy, and I’ve criticized them elsewhere in discussions with you, yet you didn’t stick around to reply. You’re purely an intellectual lightweight who uses these big terms but doesn’t have the competence to back them up when faced with the philosophical questions they raise.

If you don’t think that biology affects sexual psychology then you might as well ride the short bus.

And when you were pushed to consider the methodological problems in even settling the question in any particular case whether it holds there, never mind the philosophical underpinnings to your preferred view, you shut up good and proper and never came back, and like a punk instead bad mouthed your interlocutors at Ed Cline’s blog under your own name. Eventually, I’m sure, he’ll say something you disagree with and you’ll punk out and start calling him an idiot behind his back too at another, presumably more sympathetic blog.

National Security Workforce to Address ‘Intersectionality’: do you ever get the sense that you’re in a waking nightmare? Money quote from the memo: “Our greatest asset in protecting the homeland and advancing our interests abroad is the talent and diversity of our national security workforce.”

Last Week Tonight on Donald Trump: bit long, but great takedown of the Trump mythos. In a more rational political environment, this would have killed his presidential campaign. I’m not sure it’ll make any difference.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously: nominee must be “without any particular ideology or agenda” and have “a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.” I sure hope the Republicans can hold the line on his nominations.

Trigger Warnings in Annapolis: I’m not sure why I expected the service academies to be bastions of academic freedom, but I did. It’s much worse than the universities since they’re far more hierarchical.

Announcing the Twitter Trust & Safety Council: this is within their rights, of course. Given the leftist leanings of the company and its assembled Council of Goodspeech, I suspect that some groups will get a pass and some will face suppression. Chilling at any rate.